Muzy v. Meijer Stores Limited Partnership

N.D. Indiana

Muzy v. Meijer Stores Limited Partnership

DecidedMay 30, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-00110

StatusUnknown

This text of Muzy v. Meijer Stores Limited Partnership (Muzy v. Meijer Stores Limited Partnership) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Muzy v. Meijer Stores Limited Partnership, (N.D. Ind. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

MATTHEW MUZY ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) CASE NO. 1:23-CV-110-HAB ) MEIJER STORES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ) ELIJAH VANCE, OFFICER DALTON ) WAIDELICH, OFFICER WILLIAM TURRIFF, ) AND OFFICER ALEXIS AGUILERA ) ) Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER On May 24, 2023, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal as to Defendant Officer William Turriff only. (ECF No. 14). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) provides the terms upon which a plaintiff can voluntarily dismiss an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). The Seventh Circuit has indicated that Rule 41(a) should be used for the limited purpose of dismissing an entire action rather than for dismissal of individual parties or piecemeal claims. Taylor v. Brown, 787 F.3d 851, 857 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Although some courts have held otherwise, we’ve said that Rule 41(a) does not speak of dismissing one claim in a suit; it speaks of dismissing an action—which is to say, the whole case.”) (first quoting Berthold Types Ltd. v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 242 F.3d 772, 777 (7th Cir. 2001); then citing Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 588 (7th Cir. 2011)). According to the Seventh Circuit then, Rule 41(a) is not the proper vehicle for dropping individual parties or claims. See Taylor,787 F.3d at 858 n.9. (“The parties indicated that it's common practice in some district courts in this circuit to allow the voluntary dismissal of individual claims under Rule 41(a). If that is true, we remind judges to use Rule 15(a) instead.”). If Plaintiff desires, instead, to amend the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) to remove Officer William Turriff, leave is so granted. Plaintiff has until June 14, 2023, to file an Amended Complaint.

CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Stipulation of Dismissal as to Officer William Turriff only (ECF No. 14), has no effect and will be termed as a pending motion on the Court’s docket. SO ORDERED on May 30, 2023. s/ Holly A. Brady JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

MATTHEW MUZY ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) CASE NO. 1:23-CV-110-HAB ) MEIJER STORES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ) ELIJAH VANCE, OFFICER DALTON ) WAIDELICH, OFFICER WILLIAM TURRIFF, ) AND OFFICER ALEXIS AGUILERA ) ) Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER On May 24, 2023, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal as to Defendant Officer William Turriff only. (ECF No. 14). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) provides the terms upon which a plaintiff can voluntarily dismiss an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). The Seventh Circuit has indicated that Rule 41(a) should be used for the limited purpose of dismissing an entire action rather than for dismissal of individual parties or piecemeal claims. Taylor v. Brown, 787 F.3d 851, 857 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Although some courts have held otherwise, we’ve said that Rule 41(a) does not speak of dismissing one claim in a suit; it speaks of dismissing an action—which is to say, the whole case.”) (first quoting Berthold Types Ltd. v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 242 F.3d 772, 777 (7th Cir. 2001); then citing Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 588 (7th Cir. 2011)). According to the Seventh Circuit then, Rule 41(a) is not the proper vehicle for dropping individual parties or claims. See Taylor,787 F.3d at 858 n.9. (“The parties indicated that it's common practice in some district courts in this circuit to allow the voluntary dismissal of individual claims under Rule 41(a). If that is true, we remind judges to use Rule 15(a) instead.”). If Plaintiff desires, instead, to amend the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) to remove Officer William Turriff, leave is so granted. Plaintiff has until June 14, 2023, to file an Amended Complaint.

CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Stipulation of Dismissal as to Officer William Turriff only (ECF No. 14), has no effect and will be termed as a pending motion on the Court’s docket. SO ORDERED on May 30, 2023. s/ Holly A. Brady JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Muzy v. Meijer Stores Limited Partnership, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muzy-v-meijer-stores-limited-partnership-innd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack